It's clearly stated in the second amendment, which starts, "In order to maintain a well regulated m*****a...".
That's clearly not what it says.
It says: A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun control is fine except for not working
Jewish World Review


Whenever there is a shooting, liberals have an answer that is not an answer, namely the charade of more gun control. Fine, try it, and maybe some voodoo along the way, but it doesn't work very well, there are better alternatives, and what's truly absurd in this debate is the demeaning expression "gun nuts."

What about "gun control nuts?"

What about people who seem to think murders will go down if fewer guns are sold even though a major crime drop starting in the 1990s was accompanied by a huge increase in the number of guns?

What about people apparently not knowing that we have 300 million guns in this country and getting hold of one will continue to be easy short of mass confiscation that will not and should not happen? Criminals, by the way, mostly get their guns from such means as the black market or a family gift, not through store purchases.

What about people who don't get it that President Barack Obama's calls for gun control made him the biggest gun salesman in American history? Gun sales set records in the Obama years largely because of the fear he might make their purchase virtually impossible. Not a single law he wanted would have shrunk gun sales by a fraction as much as his rhetoric increased them.

What about the fact that a British ban on handguns saw k*****gs increase for the next five years until more cops were finally put on the beat?

What about the fact that back in the days when it had a complete gun ban, Russia had four times as many murders as we had? In that case, does culture have more to do with gun violence than anything, just as culture probably accounts for us having more k*****gs than the Europeans?

The late, great social scientist James Q. Wilson thought so.

What about the fact that so-called assault rifles are not assault weapons and that the real ones are already banned? The military says an assault weapon is one that can be automatic -- press the trigger and the gun keeps shooting until you let up. The rifles often called assault weapons because they look like them are semiautomatic -- you have to keep pulling the trigger.

By the way, handguns are the first weapon of choice in crimes and mass shootings, and while there are mass shooters who favor the automatic lookalikes, they would still k**l without them.

In fact, FBI numbers show knives are used to k**l five times more people than all rifles put together and that fists and feet do the deed more than knives.

Finally, what about a 2013 study of studies by the Centers for Disease Control? It failed to find evidence that gun control laws worked but did find evidence for something else: People rescue themselves from crimes on a regular basis with guns, and guns work better than any other safety technique.

I myself do not object to more work on ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane if Second Amendment limits are observed. Despite arguments to the contrary, the founders did believe gun possession was an individual right, m*****a or no m*****a.

It is also the case that the National Rifle Association does not have lobbying heft because it gets big dough from gun manufacturers but because it represents millions of gun owners who happen to v**e.

The recent shooting of a congressman should cause consternation, but the best weapon against misuse of guns is cops with guns plus wise strategies and tactics like the kind that have been used in New York City. It led other big cities in a major way in reducing k*****gs and incarceration through deterrence.

To wish for more gun control over that approach is to wish for more blood in the streets.

Jay Ambrose
(TNS)



Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso, Texas, and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado.

These hoaxes show up all the time.
A very simple Google search will set you straight.

It's not right to say they can't fly safely in this heat.
It's much more a case of the makers of the planes haven't put the parameters for take-off and landing and climb into their flight manuals.
They can fly, but without that documentation, the FAA won't let them.
It's like 1990, when it hit 122 here in Phoenix. Nothing could fly, because the flight parameters weren't *at* Phoenix, so they couldn't fly. The next day, almost as hot, but within the new parameters now at Phoenix, they could fly.
These new canceled flights yesterday were all Bombardier CRJ planes, which aren't certified to fly in temps over 118. Evidently, AA couldn't check weather forecasts to see there might be a problem and switch aircraft.

And yet, no one can seem to find any actual evidence, as opposed to claims such as yours.

I also am quite happy to let them do their jobs.
Is it part of their job to drop unsupported hints of stuff they can't tell us? What does that tell us?
It tells me that they want to feel important, but can't really say anything, because they have nothing to say.
Dropping this type of "bomb" is as easy as making something up. And when I say, "This is BS," there are plenty to say, "No it's not!" with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Lots of noise signifying nothing.

That's no bombshell, and certainly no "evidence" (much less proof) of anything.
Lot's pf people have said there's "evidence" of collusion, but so far, no one has been able to come up with any actual hard evidence or, much less, proof.
Of course, to the conspiracy theorists, the lack of proof is merely proof of a coverup.

It matters little what your idea of an assault rifle is. That's like you saying that a table is a chair, and try to back it up by saying some people sit on tables.
What an assault rifle really is is well known to anyone willing to look it up.
The rifles you mention as qualifying are wrong except for the M-16. Not even the M-14, which is select fire, is an assault rifle because it fires a full-size round (7.62 NATO).
I know of no kits that will turn an M-16 to full auto (or "sudo" (pseudo?) full auto) because M-16s are already full auto. If you mean turn an AR-15 to full auto, they are highly illegal unless already registered; I'd really h**e to be caught with one. As far as I can find, no charges of having such a kit have actually resulted in a conviction (doesn't mean none have, just that I'm not aware of any) because the prosecution can't demonstrate that they actually work, because most that I've ever heard of were crap. Sort of like the ever-popular AR-15 that's been converted to fire full auto that no police armorer has ever actually seen; if one was actually confiscated, the armorer would have seen it.
There is a LOT of bad info out there concerning guns, and most of it is being passed off as fact by anti-gunners.

Gun safes are like locks on your car or home. They keep honest people honest. I have a fairly good safe, had it for years; I was broken into about 5 years ago, had some stuff stolen, but the safe stymied them They knew what was in there (the ammo all around on the floor was a real tip-off), but they didn't know how to get in. This doesn't stop a few people who are pros, know they have time, and have the tools to get in. Luckily, such people to their homework, know what's in the house, and wouldn't waste their time on my safe because there are no guns in there worth their time and the risk. But the idea that a gun safe, even a really good one, will keep out the pros is just wrong.

The definition of "m*****a" is very well understood; that you do not avail yourself of that information is a shame.
As I have said before, discussions about guns are welcome, but it helps a lot to know what you're talking about.
Take the "facts" you believe, then check them against reality.
Google what "m*****a" meant when the 2A was written, for example. It may change your mind.

I did.

Can I say the same?
My record speaks for itself.
And the fact that you think you are civil speaks volumes for yourself.

The point is that you are a troll.
You seek civility, but you don't offer it.
But you knew that.

"All I ask is that you be civil, like any adult."

"You just can't keep adulthood functioning, can you?"

Classic Twardlow: trolls so much he can't even keep track of what he says.
"Let's be civil."
"You're a child."
Troll.

So you understand that there was no collusion between the Trump camp and the Roosians.
Good to see that. Now, if you could just convince your friends.